I work in Theoretical CS for context.
There is this problem A I've been working on for the past year and wrote and submitted a paper X 3 months ago on a new bound we proved for A. I just recently (literally 2 days ago) got the first round of feedback on the paper and it is extremely good. The reviewers mostly want minor changes and recommended acceptance.
However, in the last 3 month (since I submitted X), I continued working on the problem and broke that upper bound again (just a few weeks ago). I wrote another paper Y that uses a lot of the ideas from paper X, but of course with 1 major key new idea that broke the previous improved upper bound.
I am worried that if I submit Y, the reviewers will think that I got two ideas, and instead of just directly submitting the better Y directly, I decided to "break" things up into two papers instead.
Would this raise any eyebrows or am I overthinking this?